General Rugby Discussion II

razorblunt

sydthebeat wrote: »

Didn't know you were a Bryan Adams fan

It's the only cloud (number) 9 I can get to these days as a Munster and Liverpool fan!

Sabre0001

FACECUTTR wrote: »

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/rwc-2019-japan/112789104/rugby-world-cup-world-cup-video-game-promotion-goes-offside-with-all-black-fans

Hopefully it's decent

I hope so too. But it is a hooker taking a kick at goal sooooo...not overly optimistic!

FACECUTTR

Sabre0001 wrote: »

I hope so too. But it is a hooker taking a kick at goal sooooo...not overly optimistic!

😂😂😂

Legalfarmer89

Erik Shun wrote: »

Israel Folau has been sacked by Rugby Australia this morning

Wonder where he will go. Apparently they don't want him back in Rugby League in Australia where they have had a lot of issues with player misbehavior and they are trying to clean up their act.

Will he go to a big club in France? Whatever his religious beliefs( personally I wouldn't agree) he is still some player and would walk on to any team in the world.

Maybe Japan?

BonnieSituation

Legalfarmer89 wrote: »

Wonder where he will go. Apparently they don't want him back in Rugby League in Australia where they have had a lot of issues with player misbehavior and they are trying to clean up their act.

Will he go to a big club in France? Whatever his religious beliefs( personally I wouldn't agree) he is still some player and would walk on to any team in the world.

Maybe Japan?

As it may b'é but it'll be some team to take him on. They'd be pariahs!

And rightly!

Shefwedfan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

As it may b'é but it'll be some team to take him on. They'd be pariahs!

And rightly!

A couple of ex Irish players got put into that bracket last season as well.....


With a player of his quality you never know

Erik Shun

https://www.offtheball.com/soccer/kevin-kilbane-israel-folau-860335?fbclid=IwAR3rzWT3_b06ZbzN-Bz2KCC2gnWe_aOq2GznZ9BEf_Z9cmuaBV742hU_7yQ

Only posting because of the Folau comparison.. but this was something that I had not heard before

sydthebeat

Erik Shun wrote: »

https://www.offtheball.com/soccer/kevin-kilbane-israel-folau-860335?fbclid=IwAR3rzWT3_b06ZbzN-Bz2KCC2gnWe_aOq2GznZ9BEf_Z9cmuaBV742hU_7yQ

Only posting because of the Folau comparison.. but this was something that I had not heard before

Pretty much an example of why those who interpret words spoken 3500 years ago as being "word of God" need to be challenged and taken to task at every point.

Never let hateful words go without challenged. If you do, you are presenting it as acceptable.

Its sad that Kevin had to intervene because he had skin in the game.

Hopefully someday someone without direct experience can call this stuff out for the hateful ignorance it is.

BonnieSituation

Shefwedfan wrote: »

A couple of ex Irish players got put into that bracket last season as well.....


With a player of his quality you never know

True and I was thinking of that as well as I posted. They're slightly different though. Not negating the seriousness of the situation last year. That being said I never want said players next to near an Irish club again. Class or not.

sydthebeat

I see he who shall not be named (zeebs) scored a hat trick today against perpignan.

The competition for the winner is going to be interesting from here on in

Erik Shun

Israel Folau, despite his bluster, has not appealed his sacking by rugby Australia, the timeframe to do so has now passed...... where next for Folau?

Squidgy Black

Erik Shun wrote: »

Israel Folau, despite his bluster, has not appealed his sacking by rugby Australia, the timeframe to do so has now passed...... where next for Folau?

He's not appealing it in terms of a conduct hearing, but from his statement it seems like there's a strong possibility he's going to pursue the legal avenue.

sydthebeat

He's looking to go straight to the supreme Court

Would he not have to have exhausted all other routes before doing that? That's how it works in Ireland I believe.

Christy42

Ward J. Littell wrote: »

Would he not have to have exhausted all other routes before doing that? That's how it works in Ireland I believe.

Maybe just wants the attention?

Can't see him having much of a case.

Former Former

In Ireland he'd have a cast iron case for a big payoff.

They announced their intention to sack him before they'd spoken to him, let alone had a hearing. He can argue that the outcome of the hearing was predetermined and he did not get due process.

Secondly, we don't know what his contract says but it's not a hard argument to make that he was merely expressing his religious beliefs and any contractual clause that inhibits him from freely practising his faith is invalid. So the grounds for sacking him were likewise invalid, even if he signed the contract himself.

I have no idea what the law is like in Australia but I'd be surprised if it's not similar. A good lawyer will take the ARU to the cleaners.

sydthebeat

Christy42 wrote: »

Maybe just wants the attention?

Can't see him having much of a case.

Wow, I can see it being a monumental case that will divide societies way beyond Australia.... If it goes that far.

Folau will claim his freedom of religious expression is being impinged.

troyzer

This DJ who was sacked from the BBC a few weeks is almost certainly not going to win any appeal he brings forward.

He was sacked for his dogwhistle racism towards the new royal baby. I fail to see how this is substantially different.

I've been getting into a row over in the Christianity forum and the people there genuinely don't understand that his religion is irrelevant. If he had been a skinhead making homophobic comments, we wouldn't be having this debate.

I sincerely hope he loses any appeal because it would de facto mean that religious people have stronger freedom of speech rights than everyone else. Which is wrong in a modern, secular society.

aloooof

troyzer wrote: »

This DJ who was sacked from the BBC a few weeks is almost certainly not going to win any appeal he brings forward.

He was sacked for his dogwhistle racism towards the new royal baby. I fail to see how this is substantially different.

Danny Baker said he made a mistake and didn't realise the connotations of the tweet, apologised and deleted it as soon as it was pointed out to him. Folau did nothing of the sort. They're quite different.

troyzer

aloooof wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

This DJ who was sacked from the BBC a few weeks is almost certainly not going to win any appeal he brings forward.

He was sacked for his dogwhistle racism towards the new royal baby. I fail to see how this is substantially different.

Danny Baker said he made a mistake and didn't realise the connotations of the tweet, apologised and deleted it as soon as it was pointed out to him. Folau did nothing of the sort. They're quite different.

It doesn't really change the context in which they were both sacked. They said something outrageous and were thrown out on their ear.

Even if he hadn't apologised, he still wouldn't have had a case.

aloooof

troyzer wrote: »

It doesn't really change the context in which they were both sacked. They said something outrageous and were thrown out on their ear.

Even if he hadn't apologised, he still wouldn't have had a case.

The context is that this was Folau's second transgression, after receiving a warning from the first. And remorse will absolutely be taken into account in any appeal. Folau doesn't have any. They really are different.

Really don't know what you mean by the last sentence.

troyzer

aloooof wrote: »

The context is that this was Folau's second transgression, after receiving a warning from the first. And remorse will absolutely be taken into account in any appeal. Folau doesn't have any. They really are different.

Really don't know what you mean by the last sentence.

Fair enough on the second transgression. I think that just strengthens Rugby Australia's case more than anything. They probably still could have sacked him last year for bringing the sport into disrepute.

My last sentence meant that even if Baker hadn't apologised, he probably still wouldn't have had a case for unfair dismissal.

aloooof

troyzer wrote: »

My last sentence meant that even if Baker hadn't apologised, he probably still wouldn't have had a case for unfair dismissal.

But he did apologise. And apologies and remorse should be taken into account and should strengthen any case.

He apologised and deleted the post minutes after posting it. Here's part of Bakers statement:

In attempting to lampoon privilege and the news cycle I went to a file of goofy pictures and saw the chimp dressed as a Lord and thought, 'That's the one!' Had I kept searching I might have chosen General Tom Thumb or even a baby in a crown. But I didn't. God knows I wish had... Minutes later I was alerted by followers that this royal baby was of course mixed race and waves of panic and revulsion washed over me... What had I done?... It was a genuine, naive and catastrophic mistake.

Squidgy Black

Former Former wrote: »

In Ireland he'd have a cast iron case for a big payoff.

They announced their intention to sack him before they'd spoken to him, let alone had a hearing. He can argue that the outcome of the hearing was predetermined and he did not get due process.

Secondly, we don't know what his contract says but it's not a hard argument to make that he was merely expressing his religious beliefs and any contractual clause that inhibits him from freely practising his faith is invalid. So the grounds for sacking him were likewise invalid, even if he signed the contract himself.

I have no idea what the law is like in Australia but I'd be surprised if it's not similar. A good lawyer will take the ARU to the cleaners.

There was an article floating around that indicating the financial position the ARU are in currently, and outlining that any high profile case that will require significant legal fees that could run into the millions over a typical 18 month trial, and put the ARU in dire straits financially if this drags out, let alone accounting for a payout.

They've already spent close to 500k on legal fees to date and that was just to get it to an internal conduct review.

Podge_irl

aloooof wrote: »

But he did apologise. And apologies and remorse should be taken into account and should strengthen any case.

He apologised and deleted the post minutes after posting it. Here's part of Bakers statement:

You’re on the same side here ultimately. Troyzer is just saying that Folau should be as culpable and open to dismissal as Baker, if not more so.

aloooof

Podge_irl wrote: »

You’re on the same side here ultimately. Troyzer is just saying that Folau should be as culpable and open to dismissal as Baker, if not more so.

I think we're on the same side with regards Folau but not necessarily with regards Baker. I think there's more grounds for sacking Folau than there is for Baker.

Exclamation Marc

aloooof wrote: »

I think we're on the same side with regards Folau but not necessarily with regards Baker. I think there's more grounds for sacking Folau than there is for Baker.

Agreed. Folaus stance was an aggressive 'if you are x, you are going to hell'. A front up to people's choices and circumstances.

Baker's was a stupid post that was funny were it not for a racial backdrop that he either overlooked or was reckless in his approach.

They're miles apart. But we're all certainly on the same side when it comes to Folau.

aloooof

Squidgy Black wrote: »

There was an article floating around that indicating the financial position the ARU are in currently, and outlining that any high profile case that will require significant legal fees that could run into the millions over a typical 18 month trial, and put the ARU in dire straits financially if this drags out, let alone accounting for a payout.

They've already spent close to 500k on legal fees to date and that was just to get it to an internal conduct review.

I guess the flip side of this is that their Qantas sponsorship (and possibly others) were in jeopardy if they didn't sack Folau?

troyzer

I brought up Baker as an example that when highly public people say stupid stuff, they get the sack when their job relies on a positive image.

What Baker did wasn't as bad as Folau, not by a stretch. I brought him up to show that he was sacked and if Folau (who was worse) isn't sacked, it'll be because what he said is somehow more protected than what somebody else said just because it's a religious conviction. Which is quite terrifying. I don't like the idea of a skinhead getting sacked for something horrible but a Christian saying exactly the same thing gets away with it because we don't want to step on anyone's toes.

There is no skinhead in this scenario, I think I'm doing a bad job of getting my point across.

Interested Observer

troyzer wrote: »

I brought up Baker as an example that when highly public people say stupid stuff, they get the sack when their job relies on a positive image.

What Baker did wasn't as bad as Folau, not by a stretch. I brought him up to show that he was sacked and if Folau (who was worse) isn't sacked, it'll be because what he said is somehow more protected than what somebody else said just because it's a religious conviction. Which is quite terrifying. I don't like the idea of a skinhead getting sacked for something horrible but a Christian saying exactly the same thing gets away with it because we don't want to step on anyone's toes.

There is no skinhead in this scenario, I think I'm doing a bad job of getting my point across.

You're also in different jurisdictions.